英国高等法院以不具备约定资格条件为由解聘仲裁员（英国案列）

更新时间：2017-11-23 09:28:07  张振安 临时仲裁ADA 编辑：lianluobu  点击次数：2341次

在 Tonicstar Limited v AllianzInsurance and Sirius International Insurance Corporation 案中,英国高等法院根据《1996仲裁法》第24条就仲裁员不符合合同规定的相关经验要求而请求解聘该仲裁员的争议做出裁定。这一裁定特别有趣，因为解聘仲裁员的问题并不经常出现在法庭上(因为在机构仲裁中，这类问题通常由仲裁机构决定，所以通常不公开)。法院裁定解聘仲裁员的原因是他有保险和再保险法律经验但并非保险和再保险业务经验。这一裁定强调了仲裁条款关于仲裁员资质要求的重要性。它还提醒人们英国司法制度中先例案件的重要性。

案件背景

当事人就2001年2月12日签订的再保险合同产生了争议，系争合同并入了“联合超赔委员会的超损条款”。这是伦敦保险商协会于1997年1月出版标准格式条款。

合同中的仲裁条款规定任命三名仲裁员，具体规定为“除非当事人另有约定，仲裁庭应由具有不少于十年保险或再保险经验的人员组成。

问题

申请人根据《仲裁法》第24条的规定，请求撤销被申请人选定的仲裁员Schaff先生。申请人承认其在保险和再保险法律领域有十多年经验，但是根据仲裁条款规定Schaff先生没有超过十年的保险或再保险经验，因为仲裁条款中要求的是在保险或再保险领域的从业经验。

申请人根据Company X v Company Y（2000年7月17日未公布的案例），该案法院就完全相同的问题作出裁定，即根据联合超赔委员会仲裁条款的含义，在保险和再保险领域具有相当丰富经验的王室法律顾问是否有资格担任仲裁员。该案中，法院指出，该条款的结构得到了事实支持，即该仲裁条款规定的默认仲裁员委任机构是劳氏保险商协会主席和国际保险商协会主席，这两位都不太可能能够找到合适的律师。

被申请人认为 Company X v Company 案的裁定显然是错误的，因为“保险或再保险经验”的普通和自然含义包括在（或代表）保险和再保险行业工作或代表该行业而获得的经验。这样的结构使各方能够灵活地提名一位具有特殊经验仲裁员，使其成为解决争议最合适的人选。如果当事人希望将自己选择的仲裁员仅限于在保险或再保险行业工作的人员，他们本可以在条款中明确表示。

作为一个单独的和次要的问题，被告还认为法庭无权就申请人请求的救济进行裁决，因为仲裁庭本身应该首先根据《仲裁法》的以下两项规定对自己的管辖权作出裁决：

•第30（1）（b）条规定，仲裁庭可以就其仲裁庭是否适当组成的实体管辖权作出裁决; 以及

•第24（2）条规定，如果当事人赋予仲裁员、仲裁机构或其他人权利开除仲裁员，除非认定申请人首先诉诸于该机构或个人，否则法院不得行使其权力开除仲裁员。

裁定

1.遵循先例原则

首先，法院回到先例案件重要性的首要原则，参考了 Willers v Joyces案，其中法院认为，如果案件一审时存在先例判决，一审法官除非有强有力的理由不这样做，否则通常应该遵循这个判决。法院在17个月前的 Company X v Company Y 案中对于相同问题作出过判决，该判决仅在合同签订前的7个月前，以及联合超赔委员会在2003年11月制定的超赔条款修订并且随后没有就仲裁条款有任何修改。法院还指出，这个判决在再保险市场上是相当知名的，并认为法院如果不遵循 Company X v Company Y案的判决结果必须给出非常有力的理由。

法院认为 Company X v Company Y案的判决结果并不是“明显错误的”，因为该裁决基于该仲裁条款“语境”，并且该条款是由贸易机构起草。因此，尽管Schaff先生在保险和再保险领域作为律师毫无疑问拥有很多经验，法院还是裁定支持其请求，解除该仲裁员。

2.次要问题

法院认定其有权就该申请做出裁定。当事双方任命的两名仲裁员无权解聘其中一名仲裁员，因为对管辖权问题的裁决权与解聘仲裁员的权力不同。

就解聘Schaff 大律师问题，法院还裁定了一个实际问题，即被申请人任命一名仲裁员的合同程序也可以适用于仲裁员的重新任命问题，尽管合同措辞存在“一些处理”。因此，法院命令被申请人在30天内指定一名替代仲裁员。

评论

这一裁定强调了仲裁条款起草的重要性，特别是如果仲裁条款规定了仲裁员的特殊资质。具体来说，该条款不应只明确规定仲裁员的相关经验，也应说明其已获得这种经验的能力。这可能意味着需要修改标准格式条款。在起草阶段对细节的这种注意能够尽量减少由于请求仲裁员回避引起延误和费用风险。

这一案件也提醒我们，尤其是对那些来自大陆法系的当事人来说，在英国法律中司法先例的重要性。很明显法院考虑问题的首要因素是先例判决。即使法院不情愿遵循先例判决,并认为如果没有先例判决他们可能会裁定“争议语句的普通自然的解释没有限制可以获得保险或再保险经验的领域,而且“语境”论点并足以证明其中暗示在保险和再保险业务领域获得的相关经验的限制”。

有趣的是，联合超赔委员会似乎已经以实际的方式对这一裁定作出了回应。该机构已经修改了联合超赔条款中的仲裁示范条款，因此它明确允许当事人任命律师或专业顾问作为仲裁员，前提是他们至少有10年的行业经验。新的仲裁条款将于2018年1月1日生效。在任何争议发生之前，在合同中并入前一版本的联合超赔条款的当事人可以修改其仲裁条款。

 

[英文版本]

English High Court removes arbitrator on the basis that he did not possess necessary qualifications

By : Chris Parker and Elizabeth Kantor

 

In Tonicstar Limited v Allianz Insurance and Sirius International Insurance Corporation [2017] EWHC 2753, the English High Court considered an application under Section 24 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (the Act) for the removal of an arbitrator on the basis that he did not satisfy the contractual stipulation as to relevant experience. This judgment is of particular interest given that questions of the removal of arbitrators do not often come before the courts (because they are,in institutional arbitration, typically decided by arbitral institutions so are not usually public). The Court decided to remove the arbitrator on the basis that he had experience of insurance and reinsurance law, rather than required experience in the business of insurance and reinsurance. This decision highlights the importance of the careful drafting of arbitration clauses which specify characteristics of an arbitrator. It also serves as a reminder of the importance of precedent in the English judicial system.

Background

A dispute arose between the parties under a contract of reinsurance dated 12 February 2001 (the Contract) which incorporated the “Joint Excess Loss Committee, Excess Loss Clauses”.These were a set of standard form clauses, published in January 1997 under the instructions of The Institute of London Underwriters.

The arbitration clause in the Contract provided for the appointment of three arbitrators and specified that “unless the parties otherwise agree the arbitration tribunal shall consist of persons with not less than ten years’ experience of insurance or reinsurance“.

The dispute was referred to arbitration pursuant to the Contract.

The ISSUE

The claimant applied pursuant to s24 of the Act to remove the respondents’ nominated arbitrator, Mr. Schaff QC. Whilst the claimant accepted that Mr. Schaff had considerably more than ten years’ experience of insurance and reinsurance law, it argued that he did not have more than ten years’ experience of insurance or reinsurance within the meaning of the arbitration clause, as the clause required experience in the business of insurance or reinsurance.

The claimant relied on Company X v Company Y,unreported (17 July 2000) in which the Court had decided the exact same question of whether a QC with considerable experience as a lawyer in insurance and reinsurance disputes was qualified to act as an arbitrator within the meaning of the same Joint Excess Loss Committee arbitration clause. In that case, the Court noted that this construction of the clause was supported by the fact that the default appointment bodies specified in the clause were the Chairman of the Lloyd’s Underwriters’ Association and the Chairman of the International Underwriting Association, both of whom were unlikely to be in a position to identify appropriate lawyers.

The respondents submitted that the decision in Company X v Company was obviously wrong, as the ordinary and natural meaning of “experience of insurance or reinsurance” included experience acquired by working with or on behalf of the insurance and reinsurance industry. Such a construction offered the parties the flexibility to nominate an arbitrator whose particular experience made them most suitable for the dispute in question. If the parties had wished to confine their choice of arbitrators to persons working within the insurance or reinsurance industry, they could have used language which made such intention clear.

As a separate and secondary issue, the respondents also argued that the Court had no power to grant the relief sought,as the Tribunal itself should first rule on its own jurisdiction pursuant tothe following two provisions of the Act:

• Section 30(1)(b), which provides that the arbitral tribunal may rule on its own substantive jurisdiction as to whether the tribunal is properly constituted; and

• Section 24(2), which provides that if there is an arbitral or other institution or person vested by the parties with power to remove an arbitrator, the court shall not exercise its power to remove the arbitrator unless satisfied that the applicant has first exhausted any available recourse to that institution or person.

Decision

• No departure from precedent

As a starting point, the Court went back to first principles concerning the importance of case precedent, referring to Willers v Joyces [2016] UKSC 44 in which it was held that where there is a previous decision at first instance, a first instance judge should generally follow that decision unless there is powerful reason for not doing so. The previous decision on the same issue in Company X v Company Y was made 17 months previously (with no subsequent challenge), just 7 months before the Contract was signed and in circumstances where the Joint Excess Loss Committee had produced a revised draft of the Excess Loss Clauses in November 2003 which did not alter the wording of the arbitration clause. The Court also noted that the decision must have been fairly well-known in the reinsurance market and concluded that there would have to be a very powerful reason for the Court not to follow the decision in Company X v Company Y.

The Court concluded that the decision in Company X v Company Y was not “obviously wrong”, as it could be supported by reference to the context of the clause, given it was drafted by a trade body. Therefore the Court granted the application despite Mr Schaff QC’s undoubted experience of insurance and reinsurance derived from acting as counsel in those fields.

• Secondary issues

The Court found that it did have the power to grant the application. The two arbitrators appointed by the parties did not have the power to remove one of them, as the power to rule on questions of jurisdiction is different from the power to remove an arbitrator.

In light of the removal of Mr Schaff QC, the Court also determined as a practical matter that the contractual procedure regarding the respondent’s appointment of an arbitrator could also apply to the re-appointment, albeit with “some manipulation” of the contractual wording. It therefore ordered that the respondents had 30 days from the Court’s decision to appoint a new arbitrator to fill the vacancy.

Comment

This decision emphasises the importance of precise drafting if an arbitration clause specifies particular characteristics required of arbitrators. In particular, the clause should beclear not as to the relevant experience of the arbitrators, but also the capacity in which such experience has been obtained. This may mean amending standard form clauses. Such attention to detail at the drafting stage should minimise the risk of incurring the delay and costs associated with an arbitrator challenge.

This case also serves as a reminder,especially to those parties from civil law systems, of the importance of judicial precedent in English law. It is clear that the primary factor in the Court’s decision was the previous judgment on the issue. This was the case even though the Court appeared to follow the judgment with some reluctance,concluding that absent the previous decision it may have decided that “the ordinary and natural construction of the phrase in question did not limit the fields in which experience of insurance or reinsurance could be acquired and that the “context” argument was not sufficiently strong to justify implying the suggested limitation that the relevant experience be acquired in the business of insurance or reinsurance“.

Interestingly, the Joint ExcessLoss Committee appears to have already responded to this decision in a practical way. The model form arbitration clause in the Joint Excess Loss Clauses has now been amended so that it expressly allows the parties to appoint lawyers or professional advisers to as arbitrators providedthey have at least 10 years’ experience of the industry. The new arbitration clause will be effective from 1 January 2018. Parties with contracts which incorporate the previous version of the Joint Excess Loss Clauses may wish to amend their arbitration clause to reflect this change, before any dispute arises.